Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: draft output only appears after the run completes, superseded runs retain output, and supersededByRunId/supersededActions relationships are explained. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but the lifecycle disclosure is solid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, each adding distinct content (purpose, completion condition, supersession semantics) with no filler. Front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the notable lifecycle edge cases but omits where a runId comes from and what the full response shape includes, leaving an agent to infer the entry point.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single runId param is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further constraint or format detail about runId beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get one managed-agent run') and clarifies what it returns (draft output, only after completion). It doesn't explicitly name the sibling devtune_list_agent_runs it differs from, though 'one' vs 'list' implicitly distinguishes it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains output semantics but gives no when-to-use/alternative guidance. It never says to use devtune_list_agent_runs to find a runId, or when this is preferable over listing runs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.